Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate. What are your thoughts on the debate?

Ken Ham won the debate. All Bill Nye could say in response to the biggest questions was something like, "this is a great mystery." Many of Bill Nye's arguments were obviously fallacious, such as failing to admit the circular reasoning in the use of radiometric dating to believe in an Old Earth.

Ken Ham was clear and informative, and even Bill Nye admitted he learned something from Ken Ham's presentation. If Ken Ham had used counterexamples and also Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge, then he could have won by an even wider margin.--Andy Schlafly 00:04, 5 February 2014 (EST)

I think the USA Today newspaper summed up the debate well: "Ham and Nye stuck to their lines in prepared speeches that made this anything but a debate."[1]

Also, many debates have much more audience interaction with the debaters.

Maybe the next big creation vs. evolution debate will have more interaction between the debaters and/or be a series of debates or a team debate approach. Also, more audience interaction with the debaters would be helpful. Since the Scopes Monkey Trial was about 90 years ago, there may not be another big creation vs. evolution debate in our lifetimes. But maybe this will open the door to other such events. Conservative 00:29, 5 February 2014 (EST)

I doubt there will be any future decisive or significant creation vs. evolution battles. It will be a day to day and year by year and decade by decade ideological/demography/spiritual war (secular minded people have less children).

Irenaeus and the early church didn't lick Gnositicism in a big battle. Only God can beat the opposition in big battles (Red Sea and the Egyptians, etc. ). :) Conservative 00:50, 5 February 2014 (EST)

The questions selected from the audience were superb, though it would have been better if audience members asked the questions themselves, rather than the moderator reading them. More of a direct dialog between the participants in the debate would have been an improvement also.--Andy Schlafly 10:11, 5 February 2014 (EST)

I agree; the questions were good. And it would have been nicer if the audience members had been allowed to ask the questions themselves, but it's understandable that debate organizers are nervous about allowing that. And more time on rapid-fire back-and-forth would have been good, rather than one person making a long statement while the other goes back to his desk to take notes. SamHB 00:06, 6 February 2014 (EST)

IDuan weighs in, various people respond

I think - and based on the reaction I'm seeing on twitter and news outlets - the people who thought Bill Nye would win thought Bill Nye would dominate; the people who thought Ken Ham would win thought he dominated. For me, Bill Nye won - I don't think this notion of saying "we don't know the answer to that" is a bad thing. We don't know everything about the universe. Furthermore, the idea of needing 11 new species a day (when was the last time you went to a restaurant and a waiter said - "we have this special - a fish - just appeared today there's not even a name for it yet"?) in addition to the logical sorting of fossils (not mixing mammals with fish - which would have happened had there been a great flood) were the convincing points to me. Bill Nye also said how he could be proven wrong - he laid out the challenge - ken ham just said "god" - which for me is circular reasoning. The bible is true so god must be real and this is how things happened and I know this is true because the god of the bible says so.--IDuan 10:19, 5 February 2014 (EST)

Last point - from now on when people want to mention how racist Darwin was - let's not forget that the civil rights movement was not Christians vs atheists. It was Christians vs atheists - and both sides used the bible - southern bible thumpers don't actually have the best track record.--IDuan 10:25, 5 February 2014 (EST)

Also Andy you're take on bill Nye in the Super Bowl is hilarious. Yes he referenced something only 111 million people watched WHAT AN IDIOT. Hey how many people have ever seen conservapedia? WE SHOULD POST THAT ON OUR MAIN PAGE--IDuan 10:35, 5 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, consider this:

"Time and time again, Comfort made his interviewees squirm when he asked them a simple question: “Can you think of any observable evidence that Darwinian evolution is true – a change of kind?” Ray Comfort made it clear to his interviewees that he was not looking for evidence of a change from one species into another, as there are 14 different definitions of species in the literature. (He’s not far wrong on that one: philosopher of science John S. Wilkins counted seven distinct definitions of “species” in a 2010 article entitled, How many species concepts are there? (The Guardian, 20 October 2010), and 26 or 27 variations on these definitions!)"[2]

I think Ken Ham's two other mistakes was overemphasizing the operational science matter and not challenging Nye for being "tone deaf" (He should have said, "I have showed you competent scientists who are creationists and the USA has more creationists per capita than any developed country and we are the most scientifically productive". Why do you stubbornly cling to the idea that people have to embrace evolution to be good scientists when the empirical evidence shows this is false? He could have brought up Switzerland's creationism too and there high standard of living compared to some other European countries). Conservative 12:42, 5 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, I did a little more research and Nye has a misunderstanding on the types of animals that would be in the ark and this would affect his species calculations as far as the number of species at the time of the end of the worldwide flood and the number of species today and how fast the speciation would have to be:

"Nye claims that the biblical account of the Ark imposes ridiculous demands on natural selection to produce the variety of species we see today. He says that to get from the 14,000 animals on the ark to the millions of species we have today, there would have to be 11 new species formed every day for the past 4,000 years. However, there is a huge error in this calculation. The animals which went on the ark only represent land vertebrates, and do not include insects, marine creatures, or microscopic life. And we know that when we exclude these creatures (and also when we realize that some animals are categorized as different species based on only superficial differences), it becomes far more feasible."[3] See: http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-arkConservative 22:39, 5 February 2014 (EST)

SamHB weighs in, various people respond

I see that there has been some robust discussion over last night's debate. Let me add a few of my impressions, in no particular order, and by no means a complete analysis. I watched much, but not all of it.

The thing I was most curious about, of course, is why Bill Nye wanted to do something that virtually all "mainstream" scientists believed was wrong and would simply lend legitimacy to a fringe theory. Well, he said a number of things that made it clear: He is concerned about American primacy in science and technology, and will do anything to keep it from slipping away. He made this point several times during the debate. He is simply a patriotic American who wants the United States to be successful. He had also mentioned, in a number of pre-debate statements, that he is "afraid". Not afraid of losing the debate, but afraid of what creationism is doing to American preeminence in science and technology. A large fraction of our students at prestigious colleges come from foreign countries because of the shortage of good doestic applicants. Now there are many things wrong with our educational system that cause this to be the case, but one of them is that potential students in science and engineering, if they are not taught evolution and old-universe cosmology, are usually squandered. Ken Ham was right in pointing out the exceptions to this--the person who sequenced the human genome and the one who invented MRI scanners, but they are the rare exceptions. Bill Nye should have pointed this out more forcefully.

I've never seen Bill Nye's "Science Guy" shows, but from what I understand, he is considered to be an extremely good science popularizer. But I hardly saw that talent at all. This debate must have been way outside of his comfort zone as a science presenter. I got to see a small glimpse of his presentation technique in his description of the second law of thermodynamics (see below), and I was surprised at how badly he must "dumb things down" for his usual audience. His attempts a humor and "folksiness" fell completely flat. Especially whatever that quip was about the superbowl.

It was good that Bill Nye pointed out that the vast majority of Christians (disclaimer: this includes me) and other theists, in the scientific community, do not accept the YEC "just so story". He should have pushed that theme more often and more pointedly. He should have hit back at Ken Ham's assertions that any Christian must accept his interpretation of what Christianity means.

I was favorably impressed with Ken Ham's respectability and professionalism. He set forth a well-thought-out case for YEC. Looking at Conservapedia and things like the Blogspot site must have gotten me accustomed to really amateurish arguments—flying kitties, ponies, clowns, the "walrus slide", sweet svelte long-haired creationist ladies, etc.

Bill Nye should not have allowed Ken Ham to get away with asserting that mainstream scientists have "hijacked" the meaning of science with this dichotomy of "observational" vs. "historical". Science embraces both. Scientists make observations (say, that F=ma), formulate that as a rule, observe that that rule is obeyed, observe that that rule predicts future phenomena and turns out to be true, and infers that that rule must have applied to past phenomena. One needs to be very careful about drawing incorrect conclusions, of course. Science requires, above all, common sense and careful thinking. But "observational" and "historical" science are really two sides of the same coin. As an example, we know roughly how houses come into existence—we see them being built. Pour concrete foundation, put joists (made from wood cut from trees), studs, rafters, roof, sheathing into place, etc. etc. If we see a house that we didn't see being built, can we infer that it came into being by this process? Scientists have to be very careful about the inferences they make (that's what peer review is for), but, basically, the anser is "yes". How about houses that were in existence before one was born? Once again, being aware of the need for careful thinking and common sense, "yes". Is this "historical" or observational? It's really the same thing. Similarly, we observe galaxies moving apart, and, using what we know about mechanics, deduce where they must have been at certain times in the past. One needs to think carefully before coming to conclusions about these sorts of things, but claiming that this couldn't be extrapolated more than 6000 years back takes a lot of careful thinking. Saying that it couldn't have happened because of a book written by people who didn't have telescopes and didn't know how to measure spectroscopic redshift is quite a stretch.

Bill Nye could have done a much better job of explaining the second law of thermodynamics, particularly because it is so often misused by creationists. This was really disappointing. His explanation seemed to be some kind of muddled stock explanation from his TV shows, involving the efficiency of automobile engines, and the need to heat the fuel very hot to make the engine efficient. While this is true, it is largely a tangent to the case at hand. A much better explanation could have been something like "The second law of thermodynamics is an important physical law that ultimately comes from the commonplace and irrefutable observation that heat only travels from a warmer body to a cooler one, never the other way. When a warm object is placed in contact with a cool object, heat flows from the warm object, lowering its temperature, to the cooler one, raising its temperature, until the two reach the same temperature. The second law of thermodynamics is the mathematical and physical explanation for this, along with some physical consequences relating to the maximum possible efficiency of heat engines, including automobile engines, and relating this to a concept called 'entropy'. The second law says that, in a system that is completely isolated from the rest of the universe, the entropy can only increase. This is sometimes taken as meaning that "disorder" increases. This idea is sometimes misused by creationists to claim that the Earth is "running down" in some sense, so that evolution can't create ever more complex organisms. But the Earth is not an isolated system; the Sun pours huge amounts of energy onto it every day, so the second law does not apply".

Bill Nye should have been more forceful about demanding that creationism make predictions, the way mainstream science does, and in making clear just what is meant by a prediction. After all, it's easy to claim that you made a prediction, and that it was correct, after you know how things turned out. The trick is predicting the future. Bill Nye pointed out that mainstream science has made predictions, pointing out where the prediction was made, before the fact, and then showing that the predictions came true. I believe the predictions he cited were the missing elements in the periodic table, and the discovery of some transitional fossils, though I may misremember. He challenged Kan Ham to show places where creation "science" made predictions of that sort, but he didn't clarify the exact standards to which such predictions need to be held, and to which many predictions of mainstream science have been held.

There was a very interesting question at the end, leading to Ken Ham saying that there are parts of the Bible that he takes as literally and exactly true, such as Genesis, and parts that are to be taken "naturally", such as the Psalms. Bill Nye should have pounced on that.

SamHB, you wrote: "The thing I was most curious about, of course, is why Bill Nye wanted to do something that virtually all "mainstream" scientists believed was wrong and would simply lend legitimacy to a fringe theory." Setting said the issue of whether or not the creation view is supposedly a fringe view, why don't you ask Nye how much money he got for doing the debate and what percentage of revenue he gets on the DVD sales and how much publicity he got. Mystery solved? :) Conservative 00:35, 6 February 2014 (EST)

Why don't you ask him that question? I was only interested in the effect that the debate would have on public discourse, and whether those who thought the effect would be negative were correct, not in what effect it would have on his personal wealth. SamHB 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

(reply to SamHB) The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in its full meaning, establishes that disorder always increase over time (in the absence of intelligent intervention). It predicts that a perpetual motion machine is impossible. It is a fancy way of saying "Murphy's Law." The Second Law is a precursor to the basic insight of quantum mechanics.

Pouring in heat, as Bill Nye argued, does not reduce the disorder. In fact, pouring in heat may increase the disorder.

The theory of evolution insists that order increases over time without intelligent intervention. That is as illogical as saying that 2+2=5. It is not merely that no such increase in order has ever been observed, but also that such an increase in order would be a logical absurdity.--Andy Schlafly 00:39, 6 February 2014 (EST)

No!!!!! Andy, you have been saying the same wrong things about the Second Law (and about Relativity, but that's another matter) again and again and again. And you have been beaten up over this, by several people including myself, again and again and again. See here for one of my more recent attempts to explain the issues of chaos, the uncertainty principle, and perpetual motion machines. You do know that there are two types of perpetual motion machines, those that violate the first law (which are what people usually mean by the term), and those that violate the second law, right? And see here, on my user page for a more comprehensive critique.

To try to explain again, the Second Law is a rigorous mathematical theorem, embodied in the Clausius Inequality, and demonstrably and accurately applicable to physics. Murphy's law is a bit of humorous folklore. It really can't begin to explain the mathematically precise concepts of entropy or the Second Law. Carnot's theorem, and all the stuff about limits on the efficiency of heat engines, are mathematically derivable consequences of the Clausius Inequality.

Various "folksy" statements have been made by science popularizers, like Isaac Asimov and Bill Nye, explaining the Second Law in simple terms of "disorder". Those explanations don't do justice to the mathematical theorem, and I would have preferred that Mr. Nye had not attempted to bring heat engine efficiency into the debate.

Finally, there are well known criteria for applicability of the Second Law, and those criteria are frequently muddled here at Conservapedia. But I can assure you, the Second Law does not say that entropy must increase on a planet continuously bathed in over 100 watts of sunlight per square meter. That amount of energy can, by a wide margin, account for the entropy changes that occur during biological evolution. SamHB 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

In fact, the 2nd Law is much more of a problem for life than for evolution. An oak tree represents much less entropy than the billions of molecules of carbon dioxide and water that went into it. And an acorn planted where there is no sunlight will just disintegrate. The chemistry of life is energy used to decrease entropy.

I agree; without the constant presence of God, all life would cease immediately. This is similar to my theory of fridges, except they get their "life force" from a darker place, if you know what I mean. JamesWS 19:50, 12 February 2014 (EST)

On the other hand, there is no march towards complexity in evolution. It's true that the exploitation of many ecological niches required more complexity than prior niches (a single cell in the ocean needs many fewer systems than an organism on land) but if a simpler organism can succeed, evolution will be just as likely to see it succeed. And if an given level of complexity works in an environment, evolution will not pressure it to change at all (this is why we still have monkeys).

I never understood why the misstatement about the 2nd law ("the sun doesn't matter"/"isolated system is a technicality") is never discussed in light of the chemistry and physics of life. MelH 19:03, 9 February 2014 (EST)

A humorous thing about the debate is that you have creationists upset that Ham did not level Nye during the debate and you have atheists/evolutionists saying they are upset that Nye did not level Ham during the debate.

Duane Gish and Shockofgod were able to think quick on their feet in debates and were good at going on the attack debates in addition to defending the creation/Christian view. And they were reasonable and likeable in their debates. As a result, they obliterated their atheist/evolutionist opponents in debates while still opening the door for people to accept the Christian position. You have to tear down your opponent's arguments if you want to achieve strong victories in debates. You can't just defend your own view. Conservative 00:54, 6 February 2014 (EST)

I was commenting only on one particular debate that I saw. SamHB 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Bill Nye's claim that the Bible is not predictive is proven wrong by Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge. Ken Ham could have done even better by citing some of the examples from that entry.--Andy Schlafly 01:00, 6 February 2014 (EST)

SamHB, you wrote: "It was good that Bill Nye pointed out that the vast majority of Christians (disclaimer: this includes me) and other theists, in the scientific community, do not accept the YEC "just so story"." Setting aside the issue of whether this is an illogical ad populum logical fallacy, I don't even know if this is true. Tell me what the percentage of global Christianity consists of evangelicals/pentecostals/charismatic Christians and what percentage of those are evolutionists? And please cite reputable sources. Also, given the amount of repression within the scientific community towards Darwinism dissenters, how can you accurately tell me what percentage of scientists are evolutionists? Conservative 01:22, 6 February 2014 (EST)

It wasn't my purpose to get into the issue of what percentage of Christians do not accept YEC. I was simply commenting on the fact that Mr. Nye said so. If it wasn't true, I'm sure there are other people on the wide expanses of the internet who have pointed this out. Perhaps even you. Many of these web sites have comment sections that allow for debate. Go to it! SamHB 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

SamHB, have you seen THIS. So much for your argument that Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis don't use humor/satire to poke fun at evolutionary nonsense. And I am sorry to hear that you are an evolutionist stuffed shirt who has a flying feline furball caught in your throat! It is not my fault that evolutionists use an obscene amount of artistic license to deceive people with their deceptive drawings/graphics.

I don't believe I ever said that Ken Ham, or AiG, don't use humor. I simply said that Bill Nye's attempts at humor weren't well done. There's a difference there, don't you think? I don't think your Flying Kitty clip is an example of humor. I really don't know what it is an example of. SamHB 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science:

"Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture." See: Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?

I hope that clears things up for you. Conservative 01:38, 6 February 2014 (EST)

More from IDuan

I still think the point of the fossil order holds true - if there was a flood and it drained quickly - the animal fossils would mix. Not one instance of that has been found? As Nye said - if anyone here wants to do some archaeology - if one person finds an example of a mammal not where it should be - that would change the science entirely. Meanwhile - again - what did Ham say would prove him wrong? If the God of his Bible that says his God is the real God tells him that what his Bible says isn't true. Fantastic.

Sam makes a great point about predictions - I assume Andy didn't read it since he suggested the Biblical foreknowledge entry. Sam also makes a great point about Ham conceding that parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taking literally - picking and choosing is exactly what non-literalist have been accusing literalists of doing for years - and all the while literalists have been crying "you can't pick and choose!" when it comes to issues like gay marriage. I also like Nye's point about the vast majority of Christians not accepting Ken Ham's argument. I also liked his points about rock dating, trees being older than 6,000 years, ice layers, etc. But again - believing the earth is 6000 years old is almost a conspiracy theory. It's just like the people who believe Obama is Kenyan or 9/11 is an inside job. They will never ever believe otherwise. If you show them evidence proving otherwise, they say that was fabricated or wrong in some way. I don't know how effective these debates are.--IDuan 10:49, 6 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, why are you letting the atheist Bill Nye do your thinking for you and failing to do your due diligence? You seem to be taking what he says at face value and not be engaging in critical thinking. Nye declared that most Christians are not YECS. Even if this point were conceded by YECs and many would not concede this, why does this ad populum logical fallacy matter so much to you? It is an illogical argument.

Iduan, sorry for using the world gullible. I could have been more diplomatic. I wish Mr. Ham would have replied to more of Mr. Nye's claims rather than spending so much time on the operational science vs. historical science issue. I think you assumed that if Ken did not respond to all of Nye's claims, then there were no effective replies. But I just showed that there was no effective replies. Given the time constraints of debates, I don't think that is a safe assumption.

I think Mr. Ham could have more concisely covered that historical science issue and used a few prominent evolutionists quotes to illustrate the distinction between operational and historical science. For example, "As the eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr has stated, 'evolutionary biology is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.'"[5]Conservative 20:40, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Homosexual Agenda and Google

Google has finally jumped the shark and are now openly promoting the Homosexual Agenda on their mainpage. I think this shocking, abhorrent and society damaging move should be mentioned on the mainpage, with a recommendation to use a more family friendly search engine such as bing!. EricaB 10:06, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Got a link to the Google thing you have to harp on here? Karajou 11:16, 7 February 2014 (EST)

the link is www.google.com. The mainpage now features a psuedo gay pride flag and a statement essentially trying to support homosexuals. Absolutely disgraceful on their part and not respecting one of the only sensible laws that exists in Russia.EricaB 11:31, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Here is a link - EricaB, as certain as I am that she is trolling ("one of the only sensible laws that exists in Russia" is overdoing it) is right. Google has used the rainbow flag over their letters with images of athletes, and in addition - although not always - the Olympic charter passage on discrimination appears below the search bar (shown in the link provided, but I only got it one time when I've been to Google quite a few times to check it out). Here's the thing - while the American right absolutely does not support gay marriage - Russia is really jailing homosexuals for a really dubious charge, so as hesitant as we might be to say we support gay rights - I think no one here would really disagree with "But we also don't think gay people should be thrown in jail."--IDuan 11:37, 7 February 2014 (EST)

It should also be noted that the person I'm accusing of parody posted this message 6 times on Karajou's talk, on Andy's talk and on Main Page talk. Attention seeking?--IDuan 11:39, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Even if it was a parodist posting this, I still steer clear of Google because they track people and are in bed with Obama's NSA. Plus the fact that they have recently been cramming Obama down people's throat on YouTube turns my stomach. DMorris 16:27, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Why was my reproof deleted of this absurd homosexual idea of David and Jonathan? And after that i could not access any CP pages for about a week. Daniel1212 18:38, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Here it is again. for the record:

"The Lord was cool with David and Jonathan" engaging in a homosexual relationship? Then you need to read the Homosexuality and biblical interpretation page! Or see here. Prohomosexual apologists support forcing sex into passages it does not belong in, and turning David and Jonathan into a homosexual affair is one of them, while they typically resort to charging that the steamy parts were left out by homophobic editors, thus undermining the authority of Scripture, as this is a goal, if they cannot use it to support.

Meanwhile, for a long time Google has acted like the majority of media,[6] giving far more to Democrats over the past 23 years, though less this year/ [7] Way back in 2004, of the over $200,000 Google employees gave to federal candidates in 2004, “98% went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors.” Daniel1212 11:09, 16 February 2014 (EST)

‭In the material you link to, the focus is on demonstrating that David and Jonathan were not married -- and I didn’t claim that they were. While ‬I have no idea how what feelings they might have had for each other, the view that they were lovers is a traditional one. Michelangelo depicted David as a homoerotic hunk. In the days before you could talk about homosexuality directly, the relationship was used to make coded references. If example, Edward II mourned for Piers Gaveston as, “David had mourned for Jonathan," according to Vita Edwardi Secundi.PeterKa 09:15, 19 February 2014 (EST)

A suggestion concerning spam

Not sure if this is possible with Conservapedia's software but as most spam accounts are gobbledigook over 7 letters or more would user names with a maximum of 6 letters help.--JerryCa 12:47, 7 February 2014 (EST)

Biden's a ham but I'd be hard-pressed to find someone in the current Democratic or Republican field that cares more about working and middle class Americans than he does. Yes, that includes Hillary too. --Kennywillis 10:32, 8 February 2014 (EST)

Kennywillis, Don Quixote cared a lot about his quests (Impossible dreams). You have to have more than caring to help people. You need competency and a workable plan that you are willing to apply effort to. The bottom line is that economy is changing and people have to upgrade their skills and wisely invest more.

And the USA should truly reform their banking system and get rid of the Federal Reserve and their quantitative easing policy which makes the rich unjustly wealthier. In addition, put some banksters and more white collar criminals in jail and have them pay more restitution. The 2008 financial crisis did not see too many white collar criminals wind up in jail or pay a significant amount of restitution and that is because Wall Street and the banking sector were big financial supporters of Barack Hussein Obama/Joe Biden presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket in the 2008 election.

Biden is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Biden has helped pour money into the pockets of overpaid governmental workers and the financial/bankster class and done little to help the middle class and poor advance themselves. The Obama presidency has been a failure and that is why Obama's approval rating is about 40% according to Gallup. Conservative 14:29, 8 February 2014 (EST)

Gay people/first medal

Were there any gay candidates competing in slope style? Furthermore since gay people - liberally estimated - make up 15% of the population at best - and probably a smaller percentage of male athletes - did anyone not expect a heterosexual male to win? A straight man was also elected president in 2012 - was that a stinging defeat for gay groups? I don't get it. --IDuan 22:34, 8 February 2014 (EST)

Did you notice that Google got rid of their rainbow Olympics graphic. :) It must have been quite upsetting for them to see a heterosexual man from Idaho/Utah win the first Olympic gold! First Obama politically self-destructs in 2013 and now this! :) Conservative 23:42, 8 February 2014 (EST)

I believe that Google routinely takes down their novelty graphics after one day. I doubt that seeing Sage Kotsenburg win gold upset anyone there. SamHB 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, you wrote: "did anyone not expect a heterosexual male to win?". Much to the dismay of effete liberals, heterosexual he-man are going to dominate the gold medal winning in men's Olympic events once again. :)Conservative 03:40, 9 February 2014 (EST)

I truly fail to see what was wrong with the rainbow graphic. I think government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all, but what's wrong with treating gay people decently? --Kennywillis 10:20, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Conservative - surely Martin Luther king jr is rolling in his grave as well. Once again African Americans are not dominating at the winter games - another huge blow to those who think they deserve "equal rights"--IDuan 11:51, 9 February 2014 (EST)

section break

Was this Sage's win a huge blow to the African American community as well? I noticed he was a white male. I also noticed he does not have red hair. Are gingers numb in shock and disappointment? Should we waste 3 headlines talking about it? Will you begin to understand from these examples that a straight white American with brown hair winning a medal wouldn't inherently upset gays, blacks, blondes or anyone else?--IDuan 11:48, 9 February 2014 (EST)

here's why none of these groups would be upset - only a fool would think the number of rights you get corresponds to the number of medals you win at the Olympics.--IDuan 12:00, 9 February 2014 (EST)

To pick a totally random example, Jimmy Fallon is straight. Is this a "crushing blow to the homosexual agenda"? And yet, the Kotsenburg win was described that way on the main page for a while. It was later changed to two much less focused entries, one stating that "The homosexual agenda suffers another defeat." Remember, folks: This is what people see when they first come to Conservapedia. We shouldn't give the impression that CP is run by people with unhealthy obsessions.

By the way, I have read a report that Daniela Iraschko-Stolz, who is lesbian, is favored to win gold in the womens ski jump. Adjust your expectations and attitudes, and think about your mainpage headlines, appropriately. SamHB 18:04, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Martin Luther King on homosexuality - He saw homosexuality as a problem

Martin Luther King (MLK) never championed the homosexual agenda. In fact, MLK saw homosexuality as a "problem". “The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King responded in the 1958 column. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”

Why are liberals so inept when it comes to history? Poor public schools which indoctrinate students into liberal ideology? Why are liberals so illogical? Poor training in public schools when it comes to critical thinking and logic? Over and over again I see liberals assert things without doing their due diligence. It is like ideology trumps facts and logic.

There really is no excuse for this behavior. You are in the information age and information can be quickly found and fact checked. It is simply due to intellectual laziness and arrogance. Conservative 16:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

I would be careful on this. Just because Martin Luther King was leery of homosexuality doesn't mean that we as conservatives should necessarily celebrate him. This is a man who said some rather dubious things about communism/socialism and claimed that the government was there to redistribute wealth. Even more troubling is that he accused Barry Goldwater of showing signs of Hitlerism. This is especially fallacious considering that Goldwater had jewish ancestry and fought for this country in World War II. So I don't have much respect for Martin Luther King. --Burkean 21:07, 16 February 2014 (EST)

I merely quoted MLK to rebut pro-homosexual agenda apologists on this talk page. Second, hostile witness testimony in a court of law is often a very compelling/convincing argument to jurors. Quoting people who tended to lean towards the left, likewise, can be an effective strategy/tactic for conservatives to employ. Third, there are things that MLK said which conservatives agree with such as judging people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. Conservative 21:24, 16 February 2014 (EST)

no one said Martin Luther king jr supported gay rights

seriously this is what you took from that post? My point was (really obviously) that gays wouldn't upset about a man winning a medal because he was straight, in the same way that Martin Luther king jr wouldn't be upset because safe was white. That's why I and another user made comments about red heads and midgets being upset. Read the posts again my friend.--IDuan 16:44, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Parting comment about the matter of homosexuality in the 2014 Olympics

There is about 6,000 athletes competing in the Olympics.[9]. About 6 are openly homosexual which is not exactly an impressive number. Liberals and the liberal media are making a tempest in a teapot about homosexuality and the 2014 Olympics. Liberals shouldn't be surprised when conservative criticism and conservative mocking occurs about this matter.

Gays in Africa

Iduan, as a group, how do homosexuals treat each other compared to heterosexual relationships?

According to the New York Times, Dr. William Eckert was a world-renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Charles Manson murders. Dr. Eckert founded the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. According to Time magazine, Dr. Eckert was a pioneer who encouraged collaborative effort between law-enforcement and forensics teams.

Dr. Eckert wrote regarding homosexual murders:

“Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and lesbian murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings..."

Bernard Knight CBE, MD, BCh, MRCP, FRCPath, FHKCPath, DMJ (Path) was a Professor of Forensic Pathology in the University of Wales until he retired in 1996.

"As with heterosexual offenses, the cause of death in fatal cases is almost always some form of general trauma, such as strangulation or head injuries. Homosexual activity, however, may be a parallel event; it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals."

The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton reports:

"Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random hate crime."

So because there are higher rates of violence in gay relationships ... Straight people should be allowed to want to kill gay people In Nigeria and Uganda? Got it.--IDuan 16:51, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, not only is the violence more frequent, but it is more intense/severe as well. Of course, this is not surprising. Homosexuality is a sin (see: Homosexuality and the Bible). When a population of men/women actively engage in depravity, a higher frequency of extreme brutality is not an unexpected finding. Conservative 17:12, 9 February 2014 (EST)

Cons, I just read your comments on effeminate gays, and found that somewhat odd. My boyfriend is a ridiculously "He-Man" kind of guy. Of course, I don't imagine that you meant that all gays are effeminate, but nonetheless, your comments conflicted in a rather funny way with my own experiences. brenden 20:50, 9 February 2014 (EST)

So the man who tirades against atheist murder advocates murdering gays--JerryCa 07:47, 10 February 2014 (EST)

JerryCa, you failed on 3 counts: 1) No true skeptics knows who or whom edits the User: Conservative account. 2) You certainly did not show there was a tirade. 3) You showed no such advocacy.

By the way, did I bring forth strong expert testimony on homosexual on homosexual murders often displaying overkill/mutilation? If not, why not? I gave 3 citations to pathology journals/textbooks at: Homosexuality and murders. That is far more evidence than you brought forth on your 3 spurious claims. Why are liberals so intellectually weak? Your limp-wristed claims were rather lame! Conservative 08:45, 10 February 2014 (EST)

Not the point, i notice you do not deny you support for gay murder--JerryCa 08:49, 10 February 2014 (EST)

Why don't you show there was support first? That is something you clearly have not done. We both know you merit being ignored at this point. Conservative 08:58, 10 February 2014 (EST)

To be clear, I merely pointed out:

That homosexuals may be killing themselves more frequently (often with acts that display "overkill"/mutilation according to noted pathologists and pathology journals/textbooks) than any death sentences imposed by civil authorities in various countries or any incidents of "gay bashing". See: Homosexuality and murders

I will further add that through the Christian faith and repentance, anyone can leave the homosexual lifestyle and become an ex-homosexual. Conservative 18:54, 12 February 2014 (EST)

Michael Reagan news link.

Hi.

I think there's a mistake in the news tidbit about Michael Reagan and monsters in the open, as it leads to the news listed immediately prior to that one. We need to either fix it or otherwise delete it. Pokeria1 10:52, 10 February 2014 (EST)

The story/link was removed. Sorry for the mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. Conservative 13:41, 12 February 2014 (EST)

Christians Are The World’s Most Oppressed Religious Group

So let me get this straight...Christians and Muslims get harassed in the same number of countries (110 vs. 109), and even though there are almost 50% more Christian than Muslims, Christians are the most oppressed religious group? What a strange conclusion. At the very least, Christians and Muslims get oppressed in about the same number of countries. Perhaps a headline bemoaning Muslim oppression? EricAlstrom 13:06, 10 February 2014 (EST)

Eric, it does not appear that you know much about Global Christianity. Christianity is the most geographically dispersed religion in the world and Christians are the minority religion in many places: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/ Muslims are more concentrated than Christians in terms of their distribution, but they are becoming more distributed due to the low birth rates of secular Europeans/Westerners and due to the Syrian civil war.

Also, relative to evangelical/Protestant Christianity, historically Muslims are much more violent and are now known for terrorism. I do realize the GW Bush (and Obama who has a syncretic religion of liberal Christianity/Islam/securalistic religion/ideology and believes there are many roads to heaven) had a poor foreign policy and the United States did not need to get involved in two unnecessary wars (Israel did seek justice against the terrorists of the Munich games without going to war. Several terrorists lost their lives via spies/assassination). GW Bush was a neo-conservative and not a traditional conservative (big spender, aggressive foreign policy).

Lastly, in the Western World which has historically undergone a lot of Christianization, presently and historically in the 20th/21st centuries, there is not a large scale burning of mosques, but in the Middle East, lately there has been a lot of burning of churches (Egypt, Iraq, etc). Conservative 19:20, 10 February 2014 (EST)

Snowboarder risk-taking

I agree with Chuck Norris that there's no gold without bold, no gain without pain, etc - but risk taking in snowboarding and many other sports has a tragic backstory that needs due consideration. Watch the recent documentary film, The Crash Reel' about Shaun White's former main competition, Kevin Pearce, for an inside look at rash decision taking in sports. We push our sportsmen and women, particularly in extreme sports, to achieve more and more extraordinary stunts, but this comes at a price, which can often be a traumatic brain injury or even death. And I don't think the issue has anything to do with being conservative or liberal, to be honest. See the movie, it's excellent. And maybe take what Chuck Norris says with a little grain of salt. If it was your son or daughter up there, you mightn't be so happy with the culture of risk-taking. CescF 00:29, 12 February 2014 (EST)

You made some good points. I also watched a Kevin Pearce interview. The cost/benefit ratio of a fireman/policeman/missionary, etc. putting himself at significant bodily risk can be justified, but to do it for thrills/prize money/medals/entertainment is hard to rationally justify. As per your implied request, I will delete the main page entry. Conservative 02:08, 12 February 2014 (EST)

Well, I actually wasn't looking for that, just discussing it. It's a valid discussion, and I just wanted to air an alternative viewpoint. But, do as you may. CescF 00:52, 13 February 2014 (EST)

Belgium headline question

I think someone misread the article - the article states the patient would have to make repeated requests - it says nothing about if it's against the child's will.

"The law states a child would have to be terminally ill, face "unbearable physical suffering" and make repeated requests to die - before euthanasia is considered."

The child has no power to stop the euthanasia under the Belgian law. It is akin to abortion, but for children.--Andy Schlafly 22:01, 13 February 2014 (EST)

As horrible a precedent as this sets, the law requires the child's assent. He must ask for death, multiple times. All information I can find, including the article you cited, concurs. Do you have a link to different information? This is so awful that we need to be accurate in our condemnation. MelH 22:13, 13 February 2014 (EST)

What are you talking about Andy? Read the article - as a lawyer you should be able to ascertain the facts better than this. The child's repeated request for the euthanasia is clearly listed as integral - along with parental consent. You're inventing a story. The article you posted doesn't support your fictitious claim. You made a mistake - you have two options - own up to it, or take a cowardly delusional route and just wait till it blows over. Your call.--IDuan 23:34, 13 February 2014 (EST)

It would be great to review the law itself. Some newspaper articles try to sugarcoat it. A guardian typically has the legal authority to make decisions for a child. This Belgian law appears to be legalized abortion on children.--Andy Schlafly 23:53, 13 February 2014 (EST)

Regardless of the specifics of this law, there is a broader point. A child is not capable of giving consent. If you have sex with a child, it is rape even if they say you can, because they are deemed not capable of giving consent. Similarly it would seem that if a child were killed under this law with their consent, it could be argued that they were not able to give consent. The first test case will be interesting - and disturbing. --DHouser 10:13, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Andy so your reaction is to post a speculative claim that directly contradicts the article because you're too lazy to find the law, and it's easier to just assume. Great. Also to say that this is abortion after birth is inflammatory nonsense - these are terminally ill kids in a great deal of pain requesting to die. dhouser I honestly don't know enough about age of consent in Belgium - keep in mind parental agreement is also required for this medical decision - but I sincerely doubt the first case will be some legal test. The law was already passed. Who would even have standing to sue? The parents - who were required to consent? Nonsense. Regardless saying the child can't give proper consent is still vastly different than "against the child's will". --IDuan 14:14, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, the liberal media say the same thing about abortion, that there are limits on it, blah blah blah, when the reality is that there are no meaningful limits on abortion in the United States. A carefully reading of the news stories about the Belgium law reveal that a pro-euthanasia physician can interview the child and then make the decision to approve it. I've looked and looked and find no meaningful safeguard for the child.--Andy Schlafly 14:35, 14 February 2014 (EST)

So when the law says the patients request is required - and you're saying a physician might break the law and kill the child. That's murder Andy it's not the law - so suggesting the law itself says a child can be euthanized against his will is still incorrect. Suggesting there are possibilities for abuse could be correct depending on your phrasing.--IDuan 14:56, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, you're wrong here and Andy is right on. This law is basically legalized abortion for children. Just like abortion, the child has to be terminally ill, have parental consent, and personally request the procedure, just like abortion, how can't you see that.

The "patients' request" is by a guardian who may not want to take care of the child any longer. This reminds me of the "health" exception to limits on abortion ... where "health" was interpreted to meaning anything, even financial issues.--Andy Schlafly 15:58, 14 February 2014 (EST)

Andy according to the article, your wrong - the patient's request is the child's request, and consent ALSO has to be given by the parents/guardians. Read better.--IDuan 16:28, 14 February 2014 (EST)

The latest story from CNN gives as an example a 10-month-old child, who would instinctively fight any overt attempt at euthanasia (just as an unborn child does). The article does not say a child's consent is required, but that a parent or guardian's consent is. [10]

«Le médecin qui pratique une euthanasie ne commet pas d'infraction s'il s'est assuré que: le patient est majeur ou mineur émancipé, capable ou mineur doté de la capacité de discernement et est conscient au moment de sa demande; la demande est formulée de manière volontaire, réfléchie et répétée, et qu'elle ne résulte pas d'une pression extérieure; le patient majeur ou mineur émancipé se trouve dans une situation médicale sans issue et fait état d'une souffrance physique ou psychique constante et insupportable qui ne peut être apaisée et qui résulte d'une affection accidentelle ou pathologique grave et incurable; et qu'il respecte les conditions et procédures prescrites par la présente loi; le patient mineur doté de la capacité de discernement se trouve dans une situation médicale sans issue entraînant le décès à brève échéance et fait état d'une souffrance physique constante et insupportable qui ne peut être apaisée et qui résulte d'une affection accidentelle ou pathologique grave et incurable.» (bold indicates new language; translation: The doctor who practices a euthanasia does not commit an infraction if: he is assured that the patient is an adult or emancipated minor, capable, or a minor endowed with the capacity of discernment, and conscious at the moment of his or her request; the request is made voluntarily, repeatedly, and reflectively, and is not the result of external pressure; the adult or emancipated minor patient finds himself or herself in a permanent medical situation in a state of constant and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be eased and is the result of a grave and incurable, accidental or pathological disease, and such request respects the conditions and procedures set forth in this law; the minor patient given the capacity of discernment finds himself or herself in a permanent lively medical situation leading to a short-term death in a state of constant and intolerable physical or psychological suffering that cannot be eased and is the result of a grave and incurable, accidental or pathological disease.)

Thus, we see that the existing requirement for the patient to make repeated requests without external pressure is not changed. The bill adds the following language as well:

«La demande du patient ainsi que l'accord des représentants légaux si le patient est mineur doivent être actés par écrit» (translation: The patient's request as well as the agreement of the legal representatives if the patient is a minor has to be made in writing.)

Euthanasia is a grave wrong that should be universally condemned. This does not entail the erection of straw men (like a minor being killed without his consent), though. GregG 12:41, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Marvelous posting, Greg. But as your translation illustrates, there is no requirement of an independent assessment of the desire by a child (to live). Quite the contrary: the law allows a guardian to cause the result the guardian wants.--Andy Schlafly 17:50, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Gay Agenda and Olympics

Andy please explain how gay marriages - which aren't legal in most us states and only have been legal in some since ... 2006? ... Have affected the training regimens of the athletes who compete in the Olympics - bearing in mind that the athletes almost always have private trainers.--IDuan 20:32, 15 February 2014 (EST)

if it is just culture - can you explain how this year the Seattle Seahawks won tw Super Bowl - their only close contest in the playoffs was the 49ers - and both Washingon and California have legalized gay marriage?--IDuan 20:34, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Iduan, how many heavyweight, boxing champions of the world have been open homosexuals? How many martial arts, dojo masters are open homosexuals? Look at the web traffic for the International Association of Gay and Lesbian Martial Artists. It is anemic.

Societies which embrace homosexuality weaken themselves and can't compete as effectively in sports all other things remaining equal. And over the long term, societies which embrace homosexuality don't have as many people in the their populations in order to compete in the Olympics as homosexuality reduces the fertility rate of societies.

I hope this clarifies things for you. Conservative 22:01, 15 February 2014 (EST)

"If it is just culture" ... culture has a big influence on competitiveness and achievement. Does anyone deny that??? The homosexual agenda does not improve competitiveness and achievement.

NFL players often do not even live in the same state where they play, and the average length of a career in the NFL is very brief. If the NFL competed against nations that reject the homosexual agenda, such as Russia or Germany, then that analogy might work.--Andy Schlafly 21:43, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Naturally, do you have evidence that homosexuals are less competitive than heterosexuals? brenden 22:12, 15 February 2014 (EST)

In further response, Christianity is a belief system that welcomes free speech and competition. The homosexuality belief system does neither.--Andy Schlafly 22:34, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Okay Andy so you're blaming our athletes for not being competitive enough? Fascinating. New Jersey allows gay marriage, yes? Andy please tell me how you personally have lost your competitive edge because of gay marriage being legalized in your state.--IDuan 10:31, 16 February 2014 (EST)

you've selected to live in a state whose culture - which according to you has a big influence - no longer embraces competition. So surely you've been affected. Do you feel less manly? And before you cop out and say you're a Christian so you're not affected - I'll need evidence that the athletes competing - like our dear conservative friend Sage K. - are not Christians.--IDuan 10:41, 16 February 2014 (EST)

"Homosexuals" are not competitive. The following would like to disagree. Nikolai Yezhov, Народный комиссариат внутренних дел, a ruthless, but very competitive head of the NKVD. Tim Cook, head of Apple Corp, also a ruthless, but extraordinarily competitive person. Alan Turing, who's rather remarkable research gives us modern computers. Andrei Tupolev, founder of ОКБ Туполев, a very prolific soviet design bureau, whose aircraft gave NATO severe headaches up until the end of the cold war. The list goes on, and on, and on. brenden 21:39, 16 February 2014 (EST)

To put things in perspective: the Netherlands, a tiny country which embraces homosexuality, are so far second runner-up in the Winter Olympics medal count. PaulKresnik 13:00, 17 February 2014 (EST)

franchises are liberal

Now entire franchises are liberal?! Fascinating. Tell me how many titles do the lakers have compared to the thunder/sonics?--IDuan 11:53, 16 February 2014 (EST)

Your question is about as relevant today as asking how many television sets Zenith sold.--Andy Schlafly 17:05, 16 February 2014 (EST)

actually if you call an entire franchise liberal it suggests pervasive culture (you know the buss family has owned the lakers for forever right?). The lakers have won 16 championships - the thunder ONE. And Kevin durant 0. You lose!--IDuan 17:08, 16 February 2014 (EST)

By the way you didn't respond to my challenge above. Perhaps gay marriage being legal in your state really has cost you your machismo? Sad.--IDuan 17:13, 16 February 2014 (EST)